What are you watching?

[starschwar]

Gotta say though, there was no green tinting in the new one. The green tint was a criticism of the original trilogy, but now without it, it just feels wrong. At this point it's kind of necessary, the film overall was too colorful for a Matrix movie.

Matrix super-fan here.  Without going too much into my thoughts on the fourth movie (dislike it but it has redeeming qualities) - the absence of the green tint wasn't a mistake, per se.  

Spoiler:

In the original trilogy, the green tint differentiated the Matrix from reality - along with a severe absence of the color blue beyond the pills.  That is, of course, until the end of the third movie.  With The Truce in effect, and Sati's influence, the System has its first blue sunrise (note Trinity's reaction to seeing the sky in the real world - she had never seen a blue sky in her entire life.  No living human had!) - and the green tint is absent.

In The Matrix Online, which took place after the third movie and is mostly upheld by the fourth (only one line contradicts) - the green tint came back, but would be almost invisible whenever Sati controlled the sky, which was typically once a week.  Some people called these, "Sati-days".   

That said, there were incidents where the sky's color changed significantly.  In one short story arc - A Piece of Blue Sky - some absolute nutjobs tried to revert every awakened human to ignorance, as though they had taken the blue pill.  As they attempted this, they transformed the sky to be a vibrant blue - just like in the new movie!  The Analyst's Matrix was designed to keep more humans subservient than The Architect's efforts.  As such - green tint gone, blue saturation up.  I dislike the aesthetic, to be sure, but it does mesh with the deep lore.

Now, what really bakes my noodle - in the movie's many, many flashback sequences, we see Trinity's death twice.  Once, it appears as it did in Revolutions. The second - it has the green tint.  Even though it happened in the Real World.  What the hell THAT means?  I have no idea.  The implications are huge, and it's almost literally blink and you miss it.

---


Anyway, I just finished up Superman (2025).  I've never been 100% satisfied with any of the live action films about the character, and this is no exception. I've got a long list of gripes - the writing and dialogue being hollow, a few weak performances, the cardboard supporting cast, and a long list of carry-overs of the more obnoxious elements that permeated the Marvel side of the genre in recent years. But above all else, the movie is shallow and felt hollow. I do like this portrayal of Superman himself as optimistic, altruistic, selfless, heroic. If he isn't the best live action Superman, he's second to George Reeves' black and white charming self.

But in every other metric - action, cinematography, musical score (they did not take full advantage of the John Williams theme!), acting, writing, special effects - pound for pound, Man of Steel was a much better movie. If not for its less heroic depiction (that tornado scene!) that would have probably been my definitive live action Superman film.

Better luck next reboot. I'm skipping this new DC universe. I gave up on the last one only two movies in, so points for efficiency I guess?

I'd give it a C-. Average movie, more bad than good.